Debate contribution: Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 8 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5068779
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is really sad that we are here again today to talk about the failures in special educational needs that our children face daily. I cannot describe how angry and frustrated I was before recess that we could not get the Minister to come to the Chamber to talk about the plans for families who had not been placed at that time. Their numbers were in the hundreds, and they just needed communication. Communication and a bit of respect cost nothing, but we did not get it. If you are going to prioritise, I advise that we prioritise the most vulnerable children in our society. That means that we have to do everything possible, which means working together. I will not stand here and completely blame the Minister for everything that has gone wrong in the past, but he can very much change the future. That is about getting it right from the very beginning. My first speech in the Chamber was about special educational needs, making the point about early interventions being key. I made a Member's statement this morning and used one of my own cases as a parameter for success going forward, were we to somehow be successful. I gave the example of a family with a set of twins who are going into nursery school. That should be the happiest time for parents, grandparents and the whole family, when they have the experience of seeing the children off to their first day of nursery. One child got a place, but the other child did not. The child who has special educational needs was the one who did not get a place. What will it mean for that family if we do not make changes to policy, investment and prioritisation in the Chamber? That child will always watch as his sibling progresses and gets his place at the same time as their peers. The other child may not even get transport to school if it is needed. If he is lucky enough to get a place, his transport may fail because we failed at the very start. When you do not have the placements right, that rolls on into transport. That creates a vicious circle for families, and it will happen again when the children go into secondary school. Even though they are well known in the system and they may have their statement, they still have to fight for that support and for that place. Lo and behold, it may not even be the right place.
What we have seen and what we may hear today is that we have progressed some sort of measure from last year: the number of children who are not placed is in the single digits. One is far too many, but the reality is that there are hundreds of children who are not in school this week because their place is not ready. We all know, and the argument has been well rehearsed, that those places could also be the wrong place. What does that mean? It means that children end up on a reduced timetable, thus losing out on vital education. It is so unfair. We then have the same schools doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to those on free school meals, those living in deprivation, newcomer children and children with special educational needs. They are doing it all. They really are doing a great job, but not everybody is pulling their weight, and that is the sad reality. Talk to parents. Really listen to them. What I have heard in the past couple of weeks is, "What we are getting now are special schools on the cheap". They are not getting that integrated education. Far from it. We have children going into specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) placements or into units, or whatever you want to call them. Some could be in P2, while others could be in P6. That is insane. What we have there is placement by numbers. It is all data, but when you drop into the weeds of that, you will quickly find that, in the past number of years, children in their hundreds, if not in their thousands, have been placed incorrectly. That is the real scandal in all of this. How do we go about providing the right placements? How do we go about making sure that children are placed at the same time as their peers and then not waiting at the front door for transport, which is what I have heard this year? Minister, that can be done only by prioritising our children with special educational needs. That is a SEN-first approach. That is a child-centred approach. That is what we need. I am quite happy to be here to support you in doing that. What we do not need to hear is the bluster that sometimes comes across in here. We heard it in Question Time earlier on, when you set out the finances. Then, however, when you were asked a different question, your response was, "Look at my success over the past 18 months". Please tell us that you will drive delivery for children with special educational needs in the time that we have ahead and before the end of this term.
878 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.